Tensions with Russia, Islamic extremists and a security environment hinged on US-China relations are just some of the strategic challenges this week’s election winners must face, according to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

The Institute, which
enjoys close historical ties to the British establishment, has
outlined the complex challenges and choices in store for
whichever party – or combination of parties – find themselves in
power after Thursday’s election.

The paper, published Wednesday, was written by RUSI director
Malcolm Chalmers, titled “A Force for Good.”

It has been published ahead of two important reviews which will
take place this year: the National Security Strategy (NSS) and
the Strategic Defence and Security review (SDSR).

The paper concedes in remarkably frank language that many recent
military actions can rightly be viewed as strategic failures,
which, far from advancing global aims, have hindered them.

While framing recent regime change operations in North Africa as
largely benevolent, Chalmers writes that the UK and its allies
“have found – most recently in Libya – that attempts to use
military force as a Force for Good in response to humanitarian
emergencies can be counterproductive in their longer-term
effect.”

Chalmers also posit that the epoch of regime change followed by
large-scale programs of “personnel-intensive” social
engineering, such as those wrought on Iraq and Afghanistan, has
passed.

The paper also takes stock of new and emerging threats.
Critically, it does so in light of past interventions in both the
Middle East and Europe.

Referring to current heightened tensions with Russia, the paper
argues: “One of the lessons that Russia drew from NATO’s
Kosovo War in 1999 was that the commitment of Western states to a
rules-based international order only applied in cases where it
suited them.”

Yet Chalmers’ views run counter to the rafts of potential
doomsday scenarios touted by some senior political figures with
regards to Britain’s current international opponents.

“Neither Putin’s Russia nor any of the competing jihadists of
the Middle East have anything like the ability that the Soviet
Union had to threaten the security of the West.”

The paper also suggests Britain’s much-hyped aircraft carrier
program, which aims to put the first vessel in service by 2018,
may absorb rather than increase UK resources and capability.

The debate on Britain’s ability or need to contribute a symbolic
2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to the NATO military
alliance also falls victim to Chalmers’ withering inquiry.

“The Atlantic Alliance,” he argues, “has done itself
serious reputational damage by giving so much emphasis to a
target that so few of its member states have managed to
meet.”

Going forward, Chalmers recommends a return to an older set of
defense and foreign policy principles.

“The grand strategy which [the UK] adopted in the 1940s,
anchored on a community of fate between the countries of Europe
and North America, remains the right one for the country
today,” he argues.

The strategic reorientation known as the Pivot to Asia,
discussion of which was much in vogue in foreign policy circles
before the ISIS and Ukraine crises loomed, is still the most
pressing issue, according to Chalmers.

“No relationship is more important to the future of
international peace and security than the one between the US and
China.

“More broadly, the UK has a strong interest in helping to
ensure that China’s growing power contributes to international
stability rather than undermine it.”

However, Chalmers suggests that far from large-scale military
involvement, the best course for Britain at the moment is to
maintain existing levels of military exchange with regional
allies like Australia and New Zealand, while strengthening
diplomatic linkages.

It is over to the victors after May 7 to heed or reject this
prognosis.